On rent control, the response was mixed. But overall the possibility of a new, post-Rahm Emanuel direction for the city was clear.

The extent to which these commitments might be translated into action next year remains to be seen. The housing movement clearly demonstrated its strength Tuesday night, but the realtors lobby still holds great sway over the city’s politicians.

According to CHI executive director Leah Levinger, on last month the realtors association announced it was co-sponsoring a mayoral forum by the 38th Ward Democrats that was scheduled for the same night as CHI’s event. The next morning representatives of a series of candidates – Lori Lightfoot, Garry McCarthy, Susana Mendoza, Toni Preckwinkle, and Paul Vallas – called to cancel their participation in the housing forum.

By the end of the day, only Dorothy Brown, Amara Enyia, and Jamal Green were standing by their commitments to CHI.

It was a bit confounding, Levinger said, because the 38th Ward event ended up with 300 or so attendees versus some 1,000 at CHI’s. Part of it could have been what she calls “race-class privilege,” with mayoral candidates apparently more interested in white middle-class residents from the Northwest Side than the much larger multi-ethnic working class audience assembled by the groups that make up CHI. But it also seemed to demonstrate the political weight of the realtors’ lobby.

After extensive negotiations, the 38th Ward Dems agreed to coordinate start times for the forums so CHI’s could be held earlier, and Lightfoot, McCarthy, and Preckwinkle agreed to attend both. (For the record, Mendoza and Vallas went to the 38th Ward forum; Bill Daley doesn’t seem to be attending any community forums.)

At the housing forum, with some variation on details, candidates backed the main thrust oftwo ordinances proposed by CHI and allies. The Development For All Ordinance would increase the affordable housing set-aside for city-assisted housing developments from 10 to 30 percent (Preckwinkle said she supports a 20 percent requirement; Lightfoot only discussed increasing requirements that units be built on-site) and end the opt-out fees, set far below the actual cost of housing units, that have undermined the effectiveness of existing ordinance. It would also mandate family-sized units and set tiers of affordability levels to include lower-income families who are now excluded by Affordable Requirements Ordinance set-asides.

The Housing For All Ordinance would reinstate one-for-one replacement requirements for public housing redevelopment, restrict the use of public housing land for non-housing uses and require the Chicago Housing Authority to report on its activities to the City Council. It would also limit the ability of aldermen to veto affordable housing in their wards.

The candidates’ support does portend a change, since Mayor Rahm Emanuel and his Housing Committee chair, Ald. Joe Moore (49th) – who is running for reelection – have opposed both ordinances.

The candidates split on rent control. McCarthy opposed it, Enyia backed lifting the state ban on rent control but didn’t commit to enacting it locally, and Lightfoot dodged the question entirely. Brown, Green, and Preckwinkle backed rent control.

Levinger suggests there are many misconceptions about modern rent stabilization measures, which provide for reasonable increases in landlords’ expenses. In addition, with affordable housing programs now tied to private market development, rapidly increasing rents limit the impact of public subsidies to developers.

In the back of the room where the forum took place, a couple of South Side community organizers were grumbling as Preckwinkle touted her record on housing during her two decades as Fourth Ward alderman. I spoke later with Jawanza Mallone, executive director of the Kenwood Oakland Community Organization, who worked with low-income and public housing residents of the ward during Preckwinkle’s tenure.

He recalls an alderman who backed development policies that led to the displacement of thousands of low-income working families from her ward. While Preckwinkle says she brought in 15,000 units of affordable housing, he says the actual cost of so-called affordable units was often out of reach for existing residents. While Preckwinkle says she worked with public housing residents, Mallone points to a KOCO study finding that over 2,500 public housing units in North Kenwood and Oakland were lost while she was alderman. And while now, when the CHA’s Plan For Transformation is near completion, she backs one-for-one replacement, he says that when it mattered, she was a major supporter of the mixed-income formula for redevelopment that excluded many displaced public housing residents.

In addition, while Preckwinkle now takes credit for a community benefits agreement for the proposed 2016 Olympics, Mallone recalls the resistance that CBA organizers had to overcome and tough negotiations to make sure the resulting CBA had anything approaching enforceability.

It’s great that candidates now feel they have to address the concerns of housing advocates. But whoever is elected mayor, much will depend on having a stronger progressive caucus in the City Council – and on grassroots organizations keeping up the pressure.

]]>https://www.chicagoreporter.com/the-mayoral-housing-forum-that-almost-wasnt/feed/0Ald. Ed Burke represents the worst of Chicago’s white political machinehttps://www.chicagoreporter.com/ald-ed-burke-represents-the-worst-of-chicagos-white-political-machine/
https://www.chicagoreporter.com/ald-ed-burke-represents-the-worst-of-chicagos-white-political-machine/#commentsThu, 06 Dec 2018 20:59:56 +0000https://www.chicagoreporter.com/?p=2701455The news accounts following last week’sFBI raid on the offices of Ald. Edward Burke have generally characterized Burke’s role during the Harold Washington administration as obstructionist.

Burke and the rest of the City Council’s white machine faction, the so-called Vrdolyak 29, certainly blocked every Washington initiative. As many as 80 mayoral appointments dubbed the “Council Wars hostages” were held up for years and numerous boards were run by members whose terms had expired. In 1985, three expired Chicago Park District board members (a fourth had died and not been replaced) approved a contract renewal for Supt. Ed Kelly, the 47th Ward machine boss and patronage chief whosepractice of concentrating park resources in white areas had been exposed by the Chicago Reporter a decade earlier.

But for Burke it went beyond parliamentary maneuvering. By several accounts, Washington distinguished between Burke and former Ald. Edward Vrdolyak, the majority faction leader. Vrdolyak was “not a racist, he’s a bully” who would gladly “use race” toward his ends, Washington told press secretary Alton Miller, as reported in Miller’s book,Harold Washington: The Man, The Mayor. “Burke is a racist,” Washington said.

Photo by Lee Balgemann

Ald. Edward Vrdolyak (standing, center) gesturing during a meeting of the Chicago City Council with Mayor Harold Washington, as Alderman Edward M. Burke stands behind him on May 11, 1983.

Today Burke is noted for his representation of Donald Trump, winning property tax reductions thatcost local taxpayers $14 million. In a longer view, though, Burke’s scorched-earth politics of vitriol and hatred during the Council Wars presaged the strategies of our current president.

The goals of Burke and Vrdolyak, as Miller describes them, were three-fold: to constantly “impugn Washington’s integrity,” to deride him as lazy and incompetent and to promote division and discord.

Burke used his position as finance chair, with access to documents even the mayor didn’t have, to issue a near-daily drumbeat of accusations that Washington’s efforts at affirmative action were “reverse discrimination” and a new form of cronyism, and that Washington was a fake reformer and the boss of a new machine. The media went along, reporting the charges and denials without evaluating them.

Burke and Vrdolyak used controversies over Louis Farrakhan to try to divide blacks and Jews, used issues with new affirmative action programs to try to divide blacks and Latinos, and repeatedly accused Washington of being gay, hoping he would deny the charge and alienate LGBT supporters. Washington didn’t take the bait.

Just as Trump used “birtherism” to challenge the legitimacy of the nation’s first black presidenct – inspiring white racists and insulting proud African Americans across the country – Burke filed a lawsuit challenging Washington’s right to hold office, after a staff error delayed the filing of an ethics statement.

Beyond that, Burke employed personally contemptuous language to attack Washington. With the backdrop of police records doctored by a Vrdolyak operative during the 1983 campaign purporting to show that Washington had been arrested on child molestation charges, Burke exploited a report of youthful arrests of Washington aide Clarence McClain to the hilt.

McClain had been charged with pandering in his early 20’s and the Chicago Tribune also reported that he’d been charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The real culprit, the Chicago Lawyer later reported, was another person named McClain. McClain left the administration after the revelations.

But Burke repeatedly characterized the Washington administration as being “run by pimps and panderers.” And while Ald. Larry Bloom was running for state’s attorney in 1985, he made this infamous statement: “When the Washington-Bloom-McClain political caravan comes around to your neighborhood, the mothers and fathers of Chicago children better lock them up and keep them out of the way.”

“Every African American I know was outraged by Ed Burke,” recalls political scientist Bob Starks, who headed the Task Force for Black Political Empowerment in the 1980s. “We would have regular shouting matches [with Burke] in City Hall because of the way that he disrespected Harold Washington.”

We don’t know what’s behind the FBI investigation of Burke. His Trump connection sank the reelection of his brother, State Rep. Dan Burke, last spring and inspired a number of young challengers in his Latino-majority ward, where for the first time in his political career he is in trouble.

But Chicagoans have to ask: what does it say about us that this man has remained so powerful in this city for so long? And what do we do withall the mayoral candidates who have links to Ed Burke?

Correction: An earlier version of this post misstated the ward Ed Kelly represented.

]]>https://www.chicagoreporter.com/ald-ed-burke-represents-the-worst-of-chicagos-white-political-machine/feed/4Emanuel shores up downtown development on his way outhttps://www.chicagoreporter.com/emanuel-shores-up-downtown-development-on-his-way-out/
https://www.chicagoreporter.com/emanuel-shores-up-downtown-development-on-his-way-out/#commentsThu, 29 Nov 2018 19:10:48 +0000https://www.chicagoreporter.com/?p=2685556Most lame ducks stick to ceremonial duties and help prepare a transition for their successor.

Not Rahm Emanuel. He’s ramped up efforts to push his agenda – not so much to secure his legacy, it seems, as to get deals done and, in some cases, to reward his supporters.

The biggest new TIF proposal would provide $800 million in financing to support a $5 billion development called Lincoln Yards, along the Chicago River from North Avenue to Webster. Developer Sterling Bay Co. is planning up to 5,000 units of mainly luxury housing – in high-rises up to 50 stories high – along with a huge new retail section, up to five entertainment venues run by Live Nation (where Emanuel’s brother is a board member) and a 20,000-seat stadiumfor a new soccer team owned by Tom Ricketts.

The development is the final nail in the coffin of thesuccessful industrial retention policy pioneered at the North Branch Industrial Corridor by Mayor Harold Washington and carried through by his successor, Richard M. Daley.

The labor-community coalition Grassroots Collaborative came out against a TIF subsidy for Lincoln Yards in August, arguing it’s an inappropriate use of public dollars. “We are not going to stop the city’s violence and the displacement of Chicago’s black community by building new soccer stadiums and luxury condos,” said Amisha Patel, the group’s executive director. “Instead of continuing Emanuel’s failed economic policies, we need to drop the trickle-down development model and invest in the things Chicagoans actually need to keep our communities safe and thriving.”

But Lincoln Yard’s TIF district has been tailored to run exclusively in the 2nd Ward, andAld. Brian Hopkins is an enthusiastic supporter, though recently he’s had toacknowledge growing neighborhood concerns about the development. The Community Development Commission, appointed by the mayor, is expected to approve the TIF next month, and Emanuel is planning a City Council vote in April – one month before a new mayor and council take office.

Under informal aldermanic prerogative, the council generally approves TIFs supported by a ward’s alderman, but several neighboring council members have raised concerns and called for greater scrutiny of this proposal. Ald. Michele Smith, 43rd Ward, has cited concerns over the project’s density, the lack of detail about the developer’s plan, and its questionable public benefit, saying,“this process must not be rushed.” Ald. Carlos Ramirez-Rosa, 35th Ward, has called for delaying action on the TIF until a new mayor is in office.

Ald. Scott Waguespack, 32nd Ward, who formerly represented much of the North Branch district, said that “this TIF affects more than just one ward, it affects the entire city,” and it “reinforces racial and economic segregation” by continuing to divert city resources away from under-invested communities.

“This area just can’t handle that number of people, and no amount of transportation improvements can change that,” Waguespack said.

And particularly since Chicago is losing population, he said, it makes no sense to subsidize new residential and retail development – at such great cost – in a part of the city that has no lack of it. “The only way to understand this is as a profit grab,” he said.

The limited parks that have been proposed by the developer will be privately owned, and the city and developer have “refused to have a conversation about the need for new schools” to accommodate new families, he said.

Waguespack thinks the people now running for mayor should be speaking out against this deal. “Eight hundred million dollars is a lot of money,” and “that’s money that won’t be going into the corporate fund, where it could help pay for pensions.” That means higher property taxes for Chicago residents and businesses.

As for Mayor Emanuel, “he’s failed, he’s walking out the door, and on the way out he decides he wants to pad these [developers’] pocketbook,” he said. “Maybe a new mayor will actually reform TIF, rather than doubling down on it, like Rahm has done.”

]]>https://www.chicagoreporter.com/emanuel-shores-up-downtown-development-on-his-way-out/feed/1Young progressives of color take on the City Council establishmenthttps://www.chicagoreporter.com/young-progressives-of-color-take-on-the-city-council-establishment/
https://www.chicagoreporter.com/young-progressives-of-color-take-on-the-city-council-establishment/#commentsThu, 15 Nov 2018 18:11:03 +0000https://www.chicagoreporter.com/?p=2646195A generation ago, electing progressives in Chicago meant uniting black and Latino voters with white independents. Today the formula has to include turning out young voters in large numbers. In this month’s election, a surge in young voters ages 18-to-34 was a key to record turnout here.

Can the formula be applied in the city’s upcoming elections?

For mayor, there are multiple candidates appealing to a variety of constituencies –establishment candidates, black candidates, female candidates, candidates calling themselves progressive, and young candidates.

We’ll see who gets on the ballot, but it looks like there might be a double-edged generation gap. Establishment candidates seem to inspire skepticism among young people. Meanwhile, the younger candidates don’t have the public records used by older voters – who still turn out at higher levels – to judge candidates; indeed, while they demonstrate admirable enthusiasm, most seem to have little sense of what it takes to run a citywide campaign.

It may be at the ward level, in challenges to sitting aldermen, that a new generation of young leaders and voters will have the most impact next February. Given the outsized role typically played by the “donor class” at the top of the ticket, “we think independent leadership focused on community needs is going to have to come from the grassroots,” said Kristi Sanford of Reclaim Chicago. In its first round of endorsements, the coalition is backing five young Latino and African-American millennials who are running for alderman.

“With a new mayor, we need people who are going to stand up for the community and propose new ideas, push alternatives, if [the City Council] is not going to be a rubber stamp.” – Colin Bird-Martinez, aldermanic candidate for 31st Ward

They include one incumbent, Carlos Ramirez-Rosa (35th) and four challengers. Rossana Rodriguez, running against Deb Mell in the 33rd Ward, is the former director of a youth theater in Albany Park and has fought for rent control and immigrant rights and fought against school closings. Andre Vasquez, a utility company manager who became involved in Reclaim Chicago through his support for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, is challenging Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s floor leader, Ald. Pat O’Connor (40th). Maria Hadden became an activist during the housing crisis in 2007, organizing her neighbors to save their homes, and later founded Our City Our Voice to promote civic democracy; she’s challenging Joe Moore in the 49th.

Colin Bird-Martinez, 32, is an automotive market analyst and openly gay community activist running in the 31st Ward, which he says has one of the youngest populations – and lowest voter turnout rates – in the city. His “people-led campaign” uses what he calls a “deep canvassing model,” going door-to-door and engaging residents in extended conversations about community needs. His campaign is making use of online voter registration to sign up people on the spot when they encounter them on the doorstep.

His volunteers were out at 40 polling places on Election Day earlier this month, collecting signatures on his petitions and urging voters to support an initiative for a community-funded mental health center. (It passed with over 80 percent support.)

Bird-Martinez is running against Millie Santiago, who was elected four years ago and immediately reneged on her promise to join the City Council’s progressive caucus. She’s most noted for demanding discounted tickets to the Cubs World Series’ games in 2016.

“There’s a lot of cynicism about Chicago-style machine politics” among young people in the ward, Bird-Martinez said.

Bird-Martinez helped found the Hermosa Neighborhood Association and noticed that politicians showed up and took credit at ribbon-cuttings for projects – like a new school playground that residents built themselves – which they had done nothing to advance. He realized, “we need neighborhood associations but we also need more responsive government.”

The top concern among young people in the ward is “lack of opportunity,” he said. He advocates making City Colleges free, expanding access to skilled trades where mainly white male workforces are aging out, and making free full-day preschool a reality.

Gentrification is another issue, with “residents of the east side of the ward getting pushed out,” Bird-Martinez said. The current alderman has allowed new development, including 200 luxury units, “without much thought about the impact,” he said. In contrast, Bird-Martinez is refusing to accept donations from developers. He advocates higher on-site affordable housing requirements for developers, increased funding for public and affordable housing, and rent control. He’d like to see a home-grown community development corporation that could build affordable housing in the ward.

With a recent increase in shootings, crime is a big concern of voters he’s met, Bird-Martinez said. “People are scared to go out,” he said. He questions the standard response of hiring more police. “Chicago has more cops per capita than LA or New York City,” both of which have lower crime rates, he said. “But compared to other cities, we spend a lot less on social services, youth programming, crime prevention, and after-school programs for teenagers.”

He adds, “Police are by definition reactive; we need to be proactive.” He said voters respond well when he explains his position.

In general, he said, voters reached by his campaign “see a group of young people who are trying to do something” and agree that “we need young blood, because it’s been the same for so long around here.” And “with a new mayor, we need people who are going to stand up for the community and propose new ideas, push alternatives, if [the City Council] is not going to be a rubber stamp.”

Sanford said Reclaim Chicago is playing a long game. By electing young leaders and bolstering the council’s progressive caucus, “we can set a new direction for the city” in a way that impacts current decision-making and builds toward future elections.

And perhaps begins the long process of replacing the machine, ward by ward.

In a number of areas he took positions that were more progressive than the Democratic mainstream. But getting results on those promises will take lots of work on his part and even more organizing by activists.

One key issue separated the two candidates: Pritzker was elected on a clear platform of implementing a progressive income tax, with higher rates for wealthier taxpayers. That’s an absolute necessity if Illinois is to get it’s fiscal house in order, meet its constitutional duty to fund schools adequately, and rebuild a safety net that Rauner decimated.

A progressive income tax requires amending the state constitution, which takes a three-fifths vote in the legislature and ratification by voters in a general election. Both of those steps are likely to get strong pushback from big-money conservatives and will require grassroots education and pressure – although a recent poll showed 71 percent of Illinois residents support a graduated income tax.

If an amendment does pass, the next question is how to structure the tax. Pritzker hasn’t discussed tax rates, but two proposals have been floated in recent years. A plan by the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability would raise rates for earners over $300,000 a year and reduce them for everyone else, bringing in an additional $2 billion a year.

A measure introduced a couple of years ago by State Rep. Robert Martwick (19th) would replicate the graduated tax schedule of Wisconsin. That would mean an income tax hike for most people, but would generate over $5 billion, allowing the state to become the primary funder of K-12 education – and that would provide property tax relief that would offset middle-class income tax increases by a wide margin, according to Martwick.

Pritzker has said he doesn’t support Martwick’s plan, but the CTBA framework would still leave a big revenue gap. That includes a growing bill backlog, now approaching $10 billion, as well as growing pension debt. CTBA advocates expanding the sales tax to include some services and taxing retirement income over $50,000, both worthy proposals, both done in many other states. That would raise a few billion dollars more. Pritzker has shied away from both ideas.

Another significant revenue option involves closing billions of dollars of corporate loopholes that do nothing to boost the economy. Pritzker is probably familiar with one of them: offshore tax havens, which cost the state nearly $2 billion a year. The Tribune reported that leaked offshore financial records show that the governor-elect is part owner of several shell companies registered in low-tax Caribbean nations where their assets are shielded from U.S. taxation. Pritzker said offshore trusts in his name “are only providing charitable contributions,” but he also refused to release his full income tax return so that assertion can’t be checked.

Pritzker has backed legalization of recreational marijuana, saying taxing its sale could bring in $350 million a year and perhaps much more. It would also reduce costs to the criminal justice system, not to mention the costs to individuals, families, and communities of unnecessary incarceration.

It’s a tough haul politically; even winning legislative approval of marijuana legalization, which is heavily supported in public opinion polls, is expected to be challenging.

Pritzker has said he’ll name Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton to head a new Office of Criminal Justice Reform and Economic Opportunity. Stratton has a strong policy background in this area – she headed Cook County’s Justice Advisory Council as well as the Center for Public Safety and Justice at the University of Illinois at Chicago – and reform advocates I spoke with have a lot of faith in her. Once again, educating and organizing from below will be key to winning progress.

Pritzker also endorsed lifting the state ban on rent control. Contrary to the myths propagated by the real estate industry, modern rent stabilization has been effective in many big cities. Given the massive scale of the housing crisis in Chicago and elsewhere in the state, rent control is a solution that will preserve far more affordable housing than any program subsidizing developers can accomplish.

Rent control advocates have already gone beyond “lifting the ban” and are pushing legislation to establish elected rent control boards throughout the state.

Pritzker’s election and Democratic majorities in Springfield present an opportunity for progressives to move from the defensive to the offensive – but activists know that they can’t rely on politicians to get the job done.